This is hypothetical - the glasses don’t fact-check what people say, they somehow detect willful deception, like people expect polygraphs to do, but with high accuracy. Would people welcome these, fear them, object on privacy grounds? I think it would be very contentious. Would people feel different if they only fed the information to the wearer but didn’t record or send it anywhere? What exactly would the issues be?
This technology is a fantasy. It relies on the false assumption that their are detectable, reliable, and measurable physiological differences between bodies that are lying and bodies that are telling the truth.
Polygraphs aren’t unreliable because the technology isn’t ready. They’re unreliable because the idea that you can physically measure a concept (lying) is logical fallacy. (reification).
Do you know what a thought experiment is
Yeah you’re not understanding what “hypothetical” means - it means suppose this happens, not asking if it can. Like if I asked how FTL space travel would change our culture, it’s the culture part I’m interested in, not the physics being impossible.
Technically, shouldn’t the fact that brain activity ultimately has a physical basis (various chemical and electrical signals moving around and such) imply that, if a person lying knows they’re lying, there should be some physical difference between that brain and the brain of an otherwise identical individual saying the same thing, but believing it to be true? Measuring that and interpreting the data might be an impractically difficult problem to solve, sure, but if there truly were no physical difference, that would have to imply that at some level, thinking is a supernatural process that at least partly occurs outside the physical universe, which is both something no evidence exists for, and would seem in contradiction to things we do observe, like how damage to the brain changes and impairs a person’s thinking